Penalty fare advice

[rach921]

Hello,

I was visiting London from North of Scotland. I had only ever previously flown out of Heathrow and Gatwick previously and had always tapped in and out to pay the train fare.
On this occasion I was travelling from Liverpool Street station to London Stansted airport…I was running for the train and quickly tapped in and boarded the train.

On arrival at Stansted I was met (along with loads of other tourists) by inspectors issuing fines as this apparently required a specific ticket.
I purchased the correct ticket and then received a fine in my emails a few days later. I appealed and was denied.
This happened back in June 2023.

I have just received an email from IRCAS revenue recovery stating I have 7 days to pay the £100 fine or face prosecution via court. See attached photo for screenshot of the email.

Where do I stand with this? Can I not pay the fine?
Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you

 

[Haywain]

I have just received an email from IRCAS revenue recovery stating I have 7 days to pay the £100 fine or face prosecution via court.

You are not facing prosecution, IRCAS are advising that they will take action to recover a debt. This is a civil action and the easiest way of dealing with it is to pay the outstanding amount.

Where do I stand with this? Can I not pay the fine?

Yes, you can pay it - the attachment clearly says that you can - but it is NOT, technically, a fine.

 

[furlong]

Where you stand depends on whether the original penalty fare was lawful and enforceable.
If you still have the paperwork, please upload it all (covering up personal details etc) - the original penalty, your appeal, the response to the appeal etc. plus details of your journey, which train you caught, how much you paid at the time (check bank/card statement if need be) etc.

You might, for example, contend that the signage at Liverpool Street was not compliant with the regulations and so there is nothing for a court to enforce.

 

[Haywain]

Where you stand depends on whether the original penalty fare was lawful and enforceable.

It's a bit late to appeal a Penalty Fare Notice that was issued 3 years ago.

 

[rach921]

I don’t have any paperwork or the appeal reason from them as this happened 3 years ago. This email has come completely out the blue. It’s the first piece of correspondence iv had since the appeal was rejected the week after the initial fine was issued.

 

[furlong]

It's a bit late to appeal a Penalty Fare Notice that was issued 3 years ago.

If a Penalty Fare isn't imposed in accordance with the regulations, there is no debt to recover.
(This is different from an appeal based on discretion.)
Including pictures of current signage at Liverpool Street might also invite the court to muse over how the situation has inverted (contactless is now actively encouraged). If the train company thinks it was compliant on the date in question, it will no doubt be able to produce photographic evidence to prove that: there's a serious question why the company has waited 3 years, putting the OP at a severe disadvantage in obtaining such photographic evidence. When the matter was pursued no further at the time, notwithstanding the denial of the appeal, it was not unreasonable to believe the matter had been dropped. (In law the company has up to 6 years.)

 

[rach921]

I did initially tell them that I never seen any signage stating I couldn’t tap in but the inspectors that issued the penalty fare notice told me I was wrong and that I couldn’t disagree with them. Despite them not showing any proof there was. Iv not been back to London since then.
And like I said, I have no proof of anything because it’s been 3 years. Really at a loss as to what to do

 

[Haywain]

If a Penalty Fare isn't imposed in accordance with the regulations, there is no debt to recover.

I sus[pect that as with many things that you post this is just your opinion, and not something that is going to stand up in court. The time for that argument was when the PFN was issued.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2026 ==

Really at a loss as to what to do

Pay £100 and the matter goes away. It's extremely simple.

 

[furlong]

The time for that argument was when the PFN was issued.

The appropriate time to pursue civil action was also 3 years ago when the payment deadline was missed!

In court, the OP could contest the claim that any debt exists on the grounds that it wasn't imposed in accordance with the regulations.
Note that the fare element has already been paid, so the service provided does not part of the dispute which simplifies things. This matter is purely about whether or not the penalty is enforceable in the circumstances described. You're right though that the court is free to take into account what happened during the appeals process but it isn't bound by it if regulations weren't followed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2026 ==

@rach921 please hunt around and see if you can find anything relevant, such as old emails or bank/credit card statements showing how much you paid for the ticket.

Then wait for some more opinions here from others. (In your situation, I'd probably reply disputing the debt on the grounds that specific regulations in respect of signage were not met which led to the situation, noting the journey itself was paid for, and that current signage now actively encourages the very behaviour they wish to penalise retrospectively and mischievously wondering why they waited till now.)

 

[flitwickbeds]

OP says their appeal was rejected but not what happened after that. Given they are now being pursued for the debt, are we correct to assume that nothing was paid and the (email?) confirming the rejection of appeal was, essentially, ignored?

 

[rach921]

Thank you everyone for their input.

The appeal was rejected, I never paid it because I disagreed with it and never heard anything again from anyone in relation to this until yesterday, almost 3 years later.

 

[soccermad]

Well your error was to ignore the debt that you owed (subject to 2 more failed appeals) I am afraid

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The appropriate time to pursue civil action was also 3 years ago when the payment deadline was missed!

No. The best time to pursue civil action was when the penalty deadline was missed, but the appropriate time to pursue it is up to six years after the debt arose, because that's what the law allows in England and Wales: and although the debtor (the OP) is in Scotland, and I am not a lawyer, I am pretty sure that English law will apply because England's where the debt arose. So the railway are behaving appropriately in trying to get the money now.

Frankly, the railway have the OP over a barrel. This looks like part of a sweeping-up exercise to pursue old debts, so I don't think that the railway will hesitate to take the matter to court. If the railway does that, then the hassle for the OP will rapidly amount to something that many people would gladly have paid more than £100 to avoid. The easiest way out of this problem is to pay the £100, and to my mind that's the best way out as well.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you everyone for their input.

The appeal was rejected, I never paid it because I disagreed with it and never heard anything again from anyone in relation to this until yesterday, almost 3 years later.

Then you can disagree with it all you want but it remains payable. If you want to go to court about it then you certainly may do so, but I think the chances of you being successful are slim.

 

[Watershed]

Frankly, the railway have the OP over a barrel. This looks like part of a sweeping-up exercise to pursue old debts, so I don't think that the railway will hesitate to take the matter to court. If the railway does that, then the hassle for the OP will rapidly amount to something that many people would gladly have paid more than £100 to avoid. The easiest way out of this problem is to pay the £100, and to my mind that's the best way out as well.

I wouldn't say they have the OP over a barrel at all. We have no evidence to say that TOCs are routinely pursuing historical Penalty Fares in the civil courts.

Obviously this may be the start of a new trend, but I don't see what the OP has to lose by letting GA take them to Court if they so wish, and defending it on the basis that the Penalty Fare was unlawfully issued. The costs which a successful claimant is entitled to recover in a low-value civil case are highly limited.

We know that around the same time as the OP had their Penalty Fare issued, someone else successfully appealed a Stansted Penalty Fare based on the non-compliant signage at Liverpool Street.

As such it is highly unlikely that the PF was issued in accordance with the Regulations. A PF issued outwith the Regulations is, to my mind, a nullity much in the same way as the SJPN prosecutions which were overturned.

 

[furlong]

(That link was Tottenham Hale rather than Liverpool St, but I remember that Liverpool St was similarly not compliant at that time.)
Might as well make them work hard for their money, even if it is owed (which I doubt).

 

[Swedenorer]

If it's any comfort you will be one of thousands caught out by this at that time. As you have retained no evidence, why would you?, and by your own admission did not complete the procedures available to you at the time. The issuing railway company no longer exists it may well be that the public sector managers now think it worthwhile to waste a few £ to get £100 back.

You have two choices pay up or contact them either will apparently stop the clock. You could ask for a copy of the penalty fare for example and other records.

But I'd just pay it. Life's too short as it is.

 

[furlong]

But I'd just pay it.

Please send me £100 too!
(If you're someone who's happy to pay money to people who ask you for some! Clearly the OP thinks differently or they wouldn't have started this thread!)

 

[Buzby]

although the debtor (the OP) is in Scotland

Which has a different timescale - there, anyone ordinarily resident (domiciled) there must be pursued within 5 years, not 6. I’m unsure if this reduction helps?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Which has a different timescale - there, anyone ordinarily resident (domiciled) there must be pursued within 5 years, not 6. I’m unsure if this reduction helps?

Unlikely: (1) I'd expect the whole thing to be done under English law since England's where the debt was incurred (although as I say, I am not a lawyer: if there's a wrinkle I am missing, please do provide chapter and verse so that I become a more knowledgeable not-a-lawyer), and (2) only 3 years have passed: unless the railway are intending only to litigate at the last possible moment, then even under what you have said they still have two years to play with rather than the three available if the whole thing is dealt with on English rules.

 

[John R]

I wouldn't say they have the OP over a barrel at all. We have no evidence to say that TOCs are routinely pursuing historical Penalty Fares in the civil courts.

Obviously this may be the start of a new trend, but I don't see what the OP has to lose by letting GA take them to Court if they so wish, and defending it on the basis that the Penalty Fare was unlawfully issued. The costs which a successful claimant is entitled to recover in a low-value civil case are highly limited.

We know that around the same time as the OP had their Penalty Fare issued, someone else successfully appealed a Stansted Penalty Fare based on the non-compliant signage at Liverpool Street.

As such it is highly unlikely that the PF was issued in accordance with the Regulations. A PF issued outwith the Regulations is, to my mind, a nullity much in the same way as the SJPN prosecutions which were overturned.

One difficulty might be evidencing that case. "Well there was this case on an internet forum, so I contend that the signage was non-compliant on the day I travelled" is unlikely to cut it in court, surely?

 

[Watershed]

One difficulty might be evidencing that case. "Well there was this case on an internet forum, so I contend that the signage was non-compliant on the day I travelled" is unlikely to cut it in court, surely?

I'm sure that it would be possible to find examples of the signage at Liverpool Street. More to the point, if you can find pictures of the non-compliant signage at Tottenham Hale, it would be a "brave" submission in my view to suggest that the Liverpool Street signage was nevertheless completely different and compliant.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'm sure that it would be possible to find examples of the signage at Liverpool Street. More to the point, if you can find pictures of the non-compliant signage at Tottenham Hale, it would be a "brave" submission in my view to suggest that the Liverpool Street signage was nevertheless completely different and compliant.

Just to reiterate the point that this will be an awful lot of effort to put in to avoid paying £100.

Time is money, and for a lot of people, so is stress. As it's not us who would be expending the time and stress, my advice to the OP remains to pay up and move on, without throwing good money after bad.

 

[Swedenorer]

Please send me £100 too!
(If you're someone who's happy to pay money to people who ask you for some! Clearly the OP thinks differently or they wouldn't have started this thread!)

No a £ with me is a prisoner - I just apply Cost Benefit Analysis. It's very easy to give advice to do this and that but is other people's time and stress. Ever had a bailiff turn up?

 

[Buzby]

expect the whole thing to be done under English law

I expect you would (that’s the colonial approach). A small claims action as it would be for money) could not be served directly, I’ve returned at least 4 to their centralised mailing centre pointing out their action is incompetent and should they wish to proceed they require a Scottish Court, only one pursued it and they lost as I turned up and they didn’t, their action was dismissed by the Sheriff. (It was an English firm). The 5 year limit also works against us in some circumstances as we are restricted in raising actions after 60 months. It is possible to raise an action in England assuming the firm is based there but you’d need local representation there to handle it. The private parking firms looking after Scottish clients pay lip service to the differences but rarely follow-through with their talk of bailiffs (they need Sheriff Officers) and only after the case was heard in a Scottish court - they mostly don’t bother due to cost and additional unfamiliarity.

The crux is the domicile. They must genuinely reside in the country so can return the paperwork with proof. Northern Ireland has similar, but not Wales.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why is anyone talking about 5 or 6 year timescales when this happened not even 3 years ago?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I expect you would (that’s the colonial approach). A small claims action as it would be for money) could not be served directly, I’ve returned at least 4 to their centralised mailing centre pointing out their action is incompetent and should they wish to proceed they require a Scottish Court, only one pursued it and they lost as I turned up and they didn’t, their action was dismissed by the Sheriff. (It was an English firm). The 5 year limit also works against us in some circumstances as we are restricted in raising actions after 60 months. It is possible to raise an action in England assuming the firm is based there but you’d need local representation there to handle it. The private parking firms looking after Scottish clients pay lip service to the differences but rarely follow-through with their talk of bailiffs (they need Sheriff Officers) and only after the case was heard in a Scottish court - they mostly don’t bother due to cost and additional unfamiliarity.

The crux is the domicile. They must genuinely reside in the country so can return the paperwork with proof. Northern Ireland has similar, but not Wales.

I will defer to your greater knowledge: thanks.

 

[Watershed]

Just to reiterate the point that this will be an awful lot of effort to put in to avoid paying £100.

Time is money, and for a lot of people, so is stress. As it's not us who would be expending the time and stress, my advice to the OP remains to pay up and move on, without throwing good money after bad.

We should always tailor our advice to what the OP is asking. They asked if they could not pay: the answer to that is, at least at this stage, absolutely yes.

There is no court order forcing them to pay and if I were a guessing man I'd say this is a fishing expedition on behalf of GA, where they're hoping that some people will pay up after receiving a threatening email. It costs barely anything to send emails like this en-masse; if even 10% of recipients pay up, they're quids in.

On the other hand, actually pursuing court claims en-masse doesn't make economic sense. They can only recover a tiny portion (£50 in most cases) of their legal costs even if successful, and they have no way of knowing whether they even have an up-to-date address for prospective defendants, so there is every chance a CCJ would go unpaid.

Of course you are quite correct that not paying entails the possibilities of having to pay or defend a court claim. But that is, in my view, a bridge to cross when it comes to it. The OP clearly would have already paid up if they were inclined to have an "easy life".

 

[WesternLancer]

Hello,

I was visiting London from North of Scotland. I had only ever previously flown out of Heathrow and Gatwick previously and had always tapped in and out to pay the train fare.
On this occasion I was travelling from Liverpool Street station to London Stansted airport…I was running for the train and quickly tapped in and boarded the train.

On arrival at Stansted I was met (along with loads of other tourists) by inspectors issuing fines as this apparently required a specific ticket.
I purchased the correct ticket and then received a fine in my emails a few days later. I appealed and was denied.
This happened back in June 2023.

I have just received an email from IRCAS revenue recovery stating I have 7 days to pay the £100 fine or face prosecution via court. See attached photo for screenshot of the email.

Where do I stand with this? Can I not pay the fine?
Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you

I’d be paying this if I were you.

Or be prepared for a lot if paperwork and written arguments that might not get you anywhere anyway.

 

[gray1404]

Do not reply to the email. Do not do anything. Especially do not do anything that could be seen to acknowledge the alleged debt. If they wish to pursue this matter they will have to write to you. I suspect this is a fishing exercise in the hope you'll just pay up.